Supplementation Ethics

So there are a varying load of opinions based on which supplementations to lifting are "ethical" versus those that aren't. What's your opinion based on what supplements constitute cheating in the fields of strength training or MMA? (leave the baseball analogies out of this thread.) Give specific reasons why, including science if you can, and avoid the "because I said so" bullshit reasoning.

I believe that to have a shot at winning to have to be in the best condition that you can. I believe in using whatever tools are available to you in reaching your goals, as long as you personally don't mind the possible side-effects.

So, I guess I am saying that I don't think it is cheating. The choice to abstain from doing something that would increase your abilities is, to me, the same as saying that you don't mind playing with a handicap. At least in regards to professional sports, none of these guys make so little that they cannot afford to stay "supplemented" constantly if they wanted to.

I personally don't like the use of supplements. If you have Athlete A who can use all the cool HGH, andro, what-have-you compared to Athlete B who cannot use them, it's basically an unfair advantage. The side-effects far outweigh the benefits for a lot of things too. My philosophy is that if the old-timers didn't need them, we don't really either.

To take it on another level, let's talk baseball and compare Mark McGwire to the average promising rookie. This rookie may be a fantastic hitter, but he's always going to be behind McGwire unless he too decides to go the illegal route and go for pharmaceutical enhancement. The risks get ignored as all he wants to do is hit better than McGwire.

When you have high school sophomores hitting up growth hormone and all sorts of other supplements, it's getting out of control.

What I find slightly "unethical" are those folks who use roids and vehemetly deny it, saying loud and proud that they're "all-natural". Well, that's lying.

Ditto. I would extend that concept to include anyone who wants to compete. Not everybody that competes or wants to competes has the means by which to get juiced. Or simply, such a person may wish to compete in a 100% natural way.

As a result, such a person would be at an obvious dissavantage against those that juice up. Now if the "juicer" (for lack of a better term) does not plan to compete at all, then by all means, he should go ahead and do - such a person should not complain at a later time if there are side effects, if any.

So I guess, the issue of ethics come into play if supplementation gives an unfair advantage against other competitors. That is, ethics come into play in the context of competitions.

I believe winning a competition should be the result of clean personal effort, sweat, blood, discipline and technique. Anything else would be cheating, and therefore, unethical.

The street argument is retarded. BJJ is so much overkill for the street that its ridiculous. Unless you're the idiot that picks a fight with the high school wrestling team, barring knife or gun play, the opponent shouldn't make it past double leg + ground and pound - Osiris

I think that any chemicals that can be taken with little or no chance of side effects (like regular ol' protein powder or creatine) should be allowed. The ones that have significant side effects should be banned, because they put pressure on competators to use them and ultimately harm themselves. If there was a game show where contestants had to cut their fingers off to get prizes/money, that would be illegal, wouldn't it? Same with roids that cause bad side effects.

I'd like to bring up that point that these supplements are legal practically everywhere but here (USA,) the fact that taking them doesn't mean you don't have to work hard (you simply get to work as hard as someone else while getting better gains,) and that serious side-effects (just as with OTC drugs) come predominantly with overdosage.

I guess I just see the spirit of competition differently. On the one hand, how do you determine the best by eliminating someone based on a training method? "You may be better than everyone else but you got there unfairly." And where is the line between what is considered fair supplementation and unfair? (Come to think of it, OP asks this question, I haven't seen an answer.)

One the other hand, how do you qualify what is and isn't fair about training? Does a guy who can afford a gym membership have a distinct advantage over the guy who only owns a few dumbbells? I would think so. Or a guy with the money to spend adhering to a well-tailored cutting diet, or bulking diet, versus a guy who can only eat what he can afford? Or even a guy who has time to devote himself to improvement versus a guy who has to support a family? They may both be looking to accomplish the same thing, but one has a distinct advantage over the other.

In my mind, competition (in any sport, not just body building) is about who is the best, not "who is the best given certain circumstances."